Managing Private and Public Organisations

Farnham, David; Horton, Sylvia

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-24723-3_2

Cited by 34 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The above considerations as well as the absence of market pressures and competition account for the scant relevance of the profit measure and of traditional financial viability measures in the public sector. Profit is not the goal but a constraint for public-sector entities (Farnham & Horton, 1996;Guthrie, 1998;Guthrie & Johnson, 1994;Lewis, 1995;Ma & Matthews, 1993). The primary objective of public-sector organizations is to deliver services rather than generate profit.…”

Section: Public Versus Private: the Ongoing Debatementioning

confidence: 96%

“…By the same token, contracting-out activities can be at risk of de-focalizing communication on strategies and results that become fragmented among different legal entities. Governments, moreover, will perform a variety of activities and set multiple goals to address the different constituents' needs (Boyne, 2002;Farnham & Horton, 1996;Ferlie et al, 1996). As a consequence, accounting for public-sector performance will require the consideration of both financial and nonfinancial aspects, and different dimensions within those aspects.…”

Section: Public Versus Private: the Ongoing Debatementioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pursuing Private or Public Accountability in the Public Sector? Applying IPSASs to Define the Reporting Entity in Municipal Consolidation

Grossi

Steccolini

2015

International Journal of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Private-sector accounting systems have often been heralded as superior to public-sector ones and suggested as solutions to the shortcomings of the latter. Our article aims at contributing to this debate by looking at the adoption of business-like practices where the public and private sectors intersect. Our analysis shows that the adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs), strongly inspired by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), might not ensure the expected disclosure. Municipalities adopting IPSASs for preparing consolidated financial statement do not necessarily increase accountability because some relevant public service providers are not included in the reporting entities.

show abstract

Section: Public Versus Private: the Ongoing Debatementioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Public Versus Private: the Ongoing Debatementioning

confidence: 98%

Pursuing Private or Public Accountability in the Public Sector? Applying IPSASs to Define the Reporting Entity in Municipal Consolidation

Grossi

Steccolini

2015

International Journal of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Nutt and Backoff (1993), 'this ambiguity provides a sharp distinction between strategic management in public and in private organizations'. Public sector managers have multiple goals imposed upon them by the numerous stakeholders, whereas Farnham and Horton (1996) argue that private firms pursue the single goal of profit: 'it is success-or failure-in the market which is ultimately the measure of effective private business management, nothing else'. By contrast public agencies are pushed and pulled in many directions simultaneously and their managers need to balance conflicting objectives.…”

Section: Goals Definitionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Metcalfe (1993) argues that 'government operates through networks Buchanan 1975;Fottler 1981;Rainey 1983;Rainey et al 1976;Boyne 2002;Bozeman and Kingsley 1998;Farnham and Horton 1996;Bozeman and Scott 1996;Bozeman et al 1992;Bretschneider 1990 3 Bozeman and Bretschneider 1986;Fottler 1981;Kenny et al 1987;Rainey et al 1976;Ross 1988;Willcocks 1994;Box 1999;Gauch 1993;Bretschneider 1990 of interdependent organizations rather than through independent organizations which simply pursue their own objectives'. Furthermore, the requirements of the various external constituencies are likely to conflict (e.g., taxpayers and service recipients, consumer groups and producer groups).…”

Section: Relations Within and Across Organizational Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Public sector organizations usually have more formal decision making procedures regarding IS implementation, and are less flexible and more risk-averse than their private sector counterparts (Bozeman and Kingsley 1998;Farnham and Horton 1996). Bureaucratic structures stem from the requirements of monitoring bodies, demands for accountability and interdependencies with other public sector organizations.…”

Section: Work Milieumentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Critical Assessment of Project Management Methods with Respect to Electronic Government Implementation Challenges

Sarantis

Smithson

Charalabidis

et al. 2009

Syst Pract Action Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In taking forward both the Government Modernization and the Civil Service Reform agendas, renewed emphasis is being placed on project management approaches and techniques for achieving objectives more effectively and efficiently. After elaborating on specific electronic government project implementation challenges and giving an overview of state-of-the-art project management approaches, the paper examines the weaknesses of three commonly used methods in the light of the e-Government project challenges. The analysis identifies gaps in the methods, contributing to a better understanding of the factors that lead to success or failure. The resolution of such methodological limitations could lead to the enhancement of project management methods when applied to future projects.

show abstract

Resilience in Organizations and Societies: The State of the Art and Three Organizing Principles for Moving Forward

Frigotto

Young

Pinheiro

2021

Towards Resilient Organizations and Societies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resilience has attracted a multitude of scholars from diverse backgrounds and disciplines as it is a desired feature for responding to the adversities that modern societal systems face, not least the Covid-19 pandemic. Existing research displays little convergence on the definition of the concept making a robust theoretical framework and empirical understanding of resilience highly desirable. The aim of this chapter is to provide a more holistic understanding of the complex phenomenon of resilience from a multi-sectorial, cross-national and multidisciplinary perspective by proposing an original approach into the state of the art that might enhance future research. This chapter identifies three organizing principles for a framework of resilience. First, resilience embeds both stability and change which are both required elements. Second, adversities and their novelty profile can be mapped onto a typology of absorptive, adaptive and transformative resilience. Third, resilience has a temporal dimension that can be articulated in regard to forecasting, mechanisms and outcomes. The chapters of this edited book are positioned and connected by applying these three principles, in order to both enable theory testing and theory development throughout the volume and provide key empirical insights useful for societies, organizations and individuals.

show abstract

Managing Private and Public Organisations

Cited by 34 publications

References 0 publications

Pursuing Private or Public Accountability in the Public Sector? Applying IPSASs to Define the Reporting Entity in Municipal Consolidation

Pursuing Private or Public Accountability in the Public Sector? Applying IPSASs to Define the Reporting Entity in Municipal Consolidation

A Critical Assessment of Project Management Methods with Respect to Electronic Government Implementation Challenges

Resilience in Organizations and Societies: The State of the Art and Three Organizing Principles for Moving Forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About